1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to systems of light sources and more particularly to non-lethal weapon systems comprised of light-emitting diodes for dazzling or stunning humans.
2. Description of the Related Art
In both civilian law enforcement and military action, it is often necessary for enforcers to render a hostile opponent harmless without causing death or permanent injury to the subject. Such non-lethal threat deterrence employed at present includes high-voltage electrical weaponry sold under the trademark Taser®, high-pressure water jets or water cannons, and aerosol or gas dispersed chemical irritants such as CN and CS tear gases, pepper-spray, and the like. Each of the forgoing methods for non-lethal threat deterrence has significant shortcomings.
While Tasers are routinely employed in domestic civilian law enforcement to subdue individual opponents, because the operation of a standard Taser projects a wired electrical connection between a voltage source (typically part of the Taser apparatus held by the user) and the dart propelled into the skin of the subject, it is not well suited to crowd control situations with more than a few subjects. Further, Tasers have a limited range, nominally on the order of 32 feet, rendering them unsuitable for subduing more distant subjects.
Furthermore, while Tasers and related electro-shock weapons are not technically considered lethal, some governmental authorities as well as some non-governmental organizations question the safety of the use of Tasers. Yet further some civilian organizations, such as Amnesty International, allege that the use of these weapons is inhumane and unethical and call for a moratorium on their use until further research establishes that they may be safely and humanely deployed.
There are serious safety concerns about the use of water cannon for riot control as well. A modern water cannon can produce streams of water at extremely high water pressures (up to 435 pounds per square inch), which is capable of breaking subject's bones and causing significant injury to internal organs such as the spleen. Further, in much of the free world the use of such weapons has negative associations with official oppression because of their extensive employment in suppressing unarmed civil rights protesters both in the United States and abroad.
Tear gases and related irritants are typically administered to subjects by dispersal as a gas or aerosol into the surroundings of the subjects. Such agents cause irritation and pain to the subject's eyes, respiratory system and skin, inducing the subject to leave the area of dispersal. Because the use of dispersed irritants causes pain in the subjects, it is regarded by some organizations as inhumane and unethical. Further, some evidence exists that prolonged exposure to such chemical irritants may cause interstitial scaring in the respiratory system of subjects. Yet further, because these agents are generally dispersed into in a particular area, they are non-discriminatory in effect (causing pain to hostiles and non-hostiles alike in the affected area). And yet further, the value of chemical irritants for crowd control is limited by weather conditions, a shift in wind or heavy precipitation significantly limiting the effectiveness of such agents.
It has long been observed that brief exposure to high intensity light can have the effect of momentarily blinding a viewer after the light source is removed, so much so that the viewer can become disoriented or “dazzled”. Further, it has more recently been observed that brief exposure to flashing or pulsed high intensity light enhances this dazzling effect, significantly lowering the threat posed by such a subject. Efforts heretofore made to create a dazzling effect for non-lethal threat deterrence have had mixed results.
Diehl, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,040,780, describes a laser dazzler matrix, comprised of a plurality of laser light sources to produce a plurality of illumination zones. Projecting Diehl's laser matrix at a subject viewer is said to induce dazzling in the subject. Laser dazzlers such as Diehl's require substantial power supplies to provide the current and voltage needed to power the lasers, limiting the mobility of such devices.
Diehl describes embodiments of his invention that would conform to the Maximum Permissible Exposure Limits for exposure to laser light, as set forth in ANSI Z 136.1. Notwithstanding such limits, the use of blinding laser weapons is banned by international treaty (the 1995 United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons). The humanitarian organization, Human Rights Watch, has opposed the use of laser dazzlers generally, taking the position that even lower powered lasers have the potential to cause permanent injury and has recommended that the United States discontinue all ongoing research and development of tactical laser weapons because of their potential use as blinding antipersonnel weapons. The organization has further requested that existing prototypes of tactical laser weapon systems be destroyed. While field commanders in military action abroad have requested dazzler technology to add to their arsenal of non-lethal weaponry, in response to humanitarian concerns and controversy surrounding the safety of laser weaponry generally, the adoption of laser dazzler technology by both military forces and civilian police forces has been relatively low.
What is needed is a dazzler technology that demonstrably produces no long-term health effects. What is needed further is an effective dazzler technology that does not rely on lasers for its light source. What is yet further needed is an effective dazzler technology with significantly lower power requirements than those for laser-based dazzlers.